Post a New Topic
Original post made
by phil, Castlewood,
on Feb 27, 2009
I think he's doing a fabulous job, delivering exactly what he promised during his campaign: "spread the wealth"
Kudos to Obama!
Spread us some of your wealth, our Castlewood neighbor. ;)
No regrets here. We are facing some tough times with hard decisions to make. I have faith Obama and his team can guide us through this time of turmoil.
I didn't vote for Obama, but I also don't expect ANYONE to be able to solve these problems in a few months.
Time tells on all President's.
Give it time.
No regrets here! Besides, it isn't time to pass judgment on a presidency when it is only a few weeks old. The problems we are facing have been years in the making & will take more than a few weeks to repair.
Interesting that his troup draw down is no more expeditious than W's, but he's getting kudu's for it 8-) His opinions about timing have 100% agreed with Bush. The liberal media is giving this guy every benefit of the doubt, yet almost daily his bad decisions surface. He certainly has had a heck of a time picking upstanding cabinet personel ;-(
"The buck starts here"! Then the market drops 300! Maybe a little humble pie would be appropriate. This job AINT gonna be easy. The "bailout" plans are all a joke. REWARDING home buyers who violated the 3 principle rules of real estate LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.... Is it any wonder places like Tracy and Modesto are in exponential trouble compared to good locations?
How about a great big reality check. He has accomplished NOTHING in his first 6 weeks, even the good feeling that was predominant at his innauguration has wained.
The grass isn't greener folks, its just a different shade of brown.
The time to make a judgement is here when the new President plans on spending trillions of $ we do not have. We, our children and grandchildren cannot afford the $4,000,000,000,000,000 in finance charges alone, which will accrue on Obama's credit card.
No regrets yet; but worried. I don't see how his spending package and new budget add jobs for Californians. One out of every ten Californian's is out of work and I read just this morning about the avalanche of homeless students (kids) in Oxnard and Ventura counties. How does increasing taxes on small businesses (the rich??) help create more jobs and how does reducing the deduction for charity help those homeless kids? Are we really ready for huge governemnt to provide EVERY need? I don't know...I wish I had a crystal ball.
Oh and "Birdland" I am quite sure our Castlewood neighbors have worked very hard to earn their positions, I am sure may are job creators, I for one don't want them to share their wealth with me. I will take care of my family thank you very much.
Are we still at that question? We need to move forward, have faith, unite and give it time. I am so past pondering that question! Let's focus on our local issues that where we might be able to have some impact.
"We need to move forward, have faith, unite and give it time."
Tell that to Wall Street. The "No Confidence" vote is loud and clear.
I say its early but the signs don't look too encourging off what he has done so far. He likes to spend your's and your kids money.
What "Best prez" said is really scary:
"Spread us some of your wealth, our Castlewood neighbor"
People want your money because you have worked hard and been successful and they have not. Some people are just looking for the rich to provide for them because they feel that they are entitled even if they didn't put in the time and effort as you may have. I think in other parts of the world they call it socialism. The latest example would be Chavez in Venezuela. I would hope that the people of the USA are smart enough not to let Obama be the next Chavez.
As we sit here and rip Obama apart during his first days in office, let's not forget what Bush stated for months:
"The fundamentals of the economy are strong."
Can't fix what was ignored for nearly a year in a few months.
I feel confident that Obama has brought hope and a stimulus package. It is up to us to stop being scared. The last administration promoted fear and spent just as much money on the war as the stimulus package. I have made plenty of money and I'm happy to share it. In fact, that's what I'm doing. A community helps each other. All our lifestyles are affected by this economy. Hooray for Obama!
Another Gatetree Resident,
For an entertaining read, Google "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" and check out all the hits.
Bush's tax cuts expire in 2011. Obama is planning on "raising" taxes by not renewing Bush's cuts for the higher income tax brackets. That won't be until 2011.
P.S. I just wanted to clarify that Bush and Obama don't actually raise or cut taxes. That's Congress's job. The President is merely an advocate when it comes to taxing and spending and gives direction to Congress on what he won't veto.
The only thing I can say at this time is that he is trying to help all the blue collar workers and lower pay white collar workers. For those who are in the middle or upper middle class who are faced with unemployment and long time before one could find another job, Obama is not helpful there. There is a lot of talk and nothing is in place. What should one do while the details are worked out?
No regrets. He's going to have one wheel back on the bus any day now.
My doubts are not with Obama, but rather with the American people and our collective ability to come together to turn things around. The man is trying hard to take action and do the right things, and manages to be professional and respectful in the process. I already feel more valued as an American citizen by my President as well as the rest if the world than I ever did in the past many years. We gave Bush 8 years to make the impact that he did - - let's give Obama at least 8 weeks!
As an aside, as a fairly new Pleasanton resident, I am dissappointed to see the clear "neighborhood/class" bickering that I see in these posts - - perhaps that contributes to my doubts with the public as noted above. Change needs to start right here in our own backyard. Let me not be judged by my neighborhood.....
Even if folks are regretting their decisions, you can't put all the blame them for making a bad decision. Most voters made a completely uninformed decision when they voted for him in the first place.
The liberal media didn't give America all information they needed about Barack Obama to make a truly informed decision when voting. Most Obama supporters have no idea who Rezko, Ayers, and Wright are. They have no clue about his education and mentors, or his deep-seated socialist views, because the main-stream media chose Obama as their candidate and failed to fully present him in an unbiased manner to the public. There was a deliberate decision that was made by the news organizations to keep important, and yes, politically-damaging information from America.
Let's face it. Most Americans never had a real chance to see the real Barack Obama before they put him in office. Now we've got a President who is one hell of an orator, yet totally unqualified to hold the highest office of the land. Say what you will about previous Presidents, the fact remains that we have in office one of the most inexperienced politicians to have ever held the office...in a time when we need a leader with a strong record of results to guide us through this difficult time.
I'm afraid that we're going to need more than HOPE to get us through the CHANGE Barack Obama has in store for America.
No regrets at all. But I do have a question. Why is the term "liberal media" so out there? It seems so many people get their news/sound bytes from Fox news, that the other news channels are pretty much just "Fox News Lite". There are a couple of far lefties out there, but definitely not even close to the right blowhards. Why liberal media? It doesn't look that liberal to me.
Liberal Media as in ABC, NBC, and CBS to start off. Try watching a newscast that is designed for anything but ratings. Unfortunately this is still and will continue to be mainstream America's typical media outlet. Very few people actually do any verification as to validity or factual basis from these media sources. Kind of like the email farces and urban myths that get passed along that knowone seemingly checks out on sites like www.snopes.com before passing them along with the tag "were you aware of this"? 95 to 98% of them are false.
I'm a proponent of the idea that media has corporate bias. Instead of a Fairness Doctrine, the government should regulate media ownership. Independent radio thrives if not under the threat of being scoped up by a mega-corp.
Media bias in the United States Web Link
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim Web Link
What Liberal Media? Web Link
The US has a liberal media Web Link
I do appreciate someone who is willing to cite sources, so kudos for that. However, as a college student, we are specifically instructed NOT to use wikipedia as a source due to its lack of verifiability. As for the FAIR study, I would hardly call a sampling of 444 Washington DC journalists a worthy source. I haven't had the opportunity to read Alterman's book, so I cannot comment to it and the link to your final source didn't work when I tried it.
The FCC already regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. It is directed by 5 commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5 year terms. Here is my source: Web Link
Liberal talk shows do not do well because the public chooses not to listen to them and because they are not profitable. There are many liberal talk shows available to the public, but people choose not to listen to them in the numbers that opt for conservative talk shows for their own reasons. But the real question is this: Why should I be forced to listen to one type of talk show because federal regulators force me to in order to listen to the other?
Apparently my link did not work either...my source is fcc.gov/aboutus.
Amen to A Homeowner!!!!!!!!! The media repulses me. The public voted uninformed thanks to the media. There is a documentary that is to come spelling out this concern: How powerful is the media?
I saw a snippet of it and it showed voters coming out of the booth this past November. When asked questions such as: are the Reps or Dems in control of Congress; who is Bill Ayers, Barney Frank, etc; what is ACORN; who spent 150K on cloths. The only 100% correct answer was on the latter question (Sarah Palin). No one knew the answers to the rest and these voters prided themselves for being informed! They recanted in disbelief when they got the answers.
Anyway, we're in for a ride and we will all have to hold on as Socialism is on its way. After Socialism wears out, Communism is next.
Read the following and think about what is written:
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota
I think Scared hit the nail on the head! I left home 29 yrs. ago with $200 in my pocket and to date have not taken a dime of help from anyone and my family is doing very well. I was brought up with the mentallity that hard work has it's rewards and NEVER live outside of my means. I think people have gotten the idea of entitlement - that they deserve what everyone else has whether they have to work for it or not. Get a clue, it doesn't work that way. Yes times are hard and I am glad my kids are seeing and feeling the effects of todays economy, wondering if they too will be laid off of their jobs and that reality is not what they have grown up with in Pleasanton! If I am expected to "share my wealth" with those too lazy to get off their butts and take whatever job they can find, then I will no longer be able to support the fabulous programs out there for the harworking people who truely deserve help during these difficult times.
For A Homeowner, a resident of the Castlewood Heights neighborhood,
"Most Obama supporters have no idea who Rezko, Ayers, and Wright are"
I know who they are and I still voted for Obama. I listen to Sean Hannity and I still voted for Obama. I am a Democrat who researched both sides and made my own decision. I know I am not 'Most' but I am not alone.
For disclosure, I have a non-commercial radio operator's license. I think you misunderstood what I meant by regulate. I said "regulate ownership". The FCC does not regulate media ownership.
And yes, I agree with you regarding Wikipedia to some extent. I wouldn't though throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wikipedia tends to provide a good starting point from which to launch further research.
What's the difference between Communism and the conservative desire for less government? If you are unsure of the answer, it means you don't really understand the theoretical foundations of Communism.
The Founding Fathers studied Athenian democracy and were very concerned by it. That's why they set up the current government like they did. I think you'd be interested in looking up "The Iron Rule of Oligarchy" which posits that all forms of government result in oligarchy.
To 'Me': I second that! I knew exactly who I was voting for. I mean, I even listen to Michael Savage once in a while! I have to give the American public a bit more credit than what 'A Homeowner' is giving. I never voted for Bush, never liked his policies and I never bashed or insulted those who did. This is the rhetoric and ignorance that divides us all. I do not regret voting for Obama. It's going to take a lot to get us out of the crisis we're in & it's not going to happen overnight, or be easy. It's barely been over a month!
First of all, President Obama has only been in office a very short time. Second, he is taking action, at least. Once the economy picks up, then taxes and other fees start rolling in.
We saw very clearly what happened with the lack of response from the Hoover administration during the Great Depression. And, for those not familiar with history of the US economy, the employment bettered by approx. 10 percentage during FDR's administration. Considering there were no prior experiences of a Great Depression to work off of, I think that FDR's administration overall did a very good job in at least trying some bold ideas.
I would like to answer this by posing another question. Why did the British Communist Party, in their front page story say: "This is the best thing that ever happened to America"? The British Communist Party now feel that they have a real ally.
As you said, you are not "most."
Kudos to you for making an educated decision on your candidate. I truly do appreciate that you took the time to learn about the issues and consider the facts before making your decision. I wish more people took the time to do so. But do you really beleive that "most" of those who voted for Barack set aside main-stream media bias and sough out alternative information by which to make their decision like you did? Do you think they examined ALL the information that was made available about him and made an informed decision prior to voting?
While I certainly concede that there are those who diligently and intelligently educated themselves about Obama, "most" as my original post referred to, simply did not. They voted against an unpopular President's party and the Iraq war, and for socialist philosophies that they could gain advantage from regardless of the long-term ramifications, as well as a variety of other reasons that we all know are true, but are too incendiary to put into words here. But ask "most" voters anything about his prior voting record or past associations, and then you'd find out just how much America educated themselves before electing Barack Obama.
Thank you for clarifying your position. However, you still did not answer my question with regards to federal regulation. I would like to know why you feel I should have to listen to one type of talk show because federal regulators force me to in order to listen to the one I want to?
Dublinmike wrote: "We saw very clearly what happened with the lack of response from the Hoover administration during the Great Depression."
I think the government is somewhat damned if they do and damned if they don't on this latest recession. The government tried to do something by bailing out Bear Stearns. Then they didn't do the same for Lehman. And within 24 hours everything went into the proverbial hand basket. Now the whole market expected bail outs instead. And if the government did nothing for Bear, the result probably would have been the same.
I missed your question probably because I think it is rhetorical.
"I would like to know why you feel I should have to listen to one type of talk show because federal regulators force me to in order to listen to the one I want to?"
First, I never said I feel this way. Second, no one is forcing you to listen.
Fair enough...though the current debate surrounding regulation of media ownership and the Fairness Doctrine does apply to my question.
You didn't really say in your post why you believe that "instead of a Fairness Doctrine, the government should regulate media ownership." It's off-topic for this discussion area, but I'd be interested in your view on why regulation is necessary if not to regulate content.
Which is more preferable? Corporate censorship or government censorship? How do you offset both? One answer is to regulate media ownership and make it illegal for a corporation to snap up all the independent radio stations, newspapers, tv, etc. That's what a wholly free market tends to do, allow monopolies and oligarchies to run wild to the detriment of the average citizen and the health of our democracy. Who cares about free speech when there's money involved? If these large corporations are limited in their greed by such regulation, they can't control the message. Corporations controlling the message isn't a new problem. Hearst was one of the first.
Here's from a previous link I provided: Web Link
"In all, the number of dominant corporations who control any form of media has shrunk from 46 in 1981 to exactly half in 1992: 23. At the end of World War II, 80 percent of all newspapers were privately owned. Today, that figure is its exact opposite: 80 percent of all newspapers are owned by corporate chains. From 1960 to today, the number of corporations which own newspapers fell from 27 to 14. (Gannett Company, which publishes USA Today, is the largest, with 87 other daily newspapers.) From 1981 to 1988, the number of corporations who owned magazines fell from 20 to a mere three. Television news is dominated by four major networks, who control up to three-fourths of the audience share.
One of the most obvious signs of this trend is that cities are becoming "one-newspaper towns." One of the persons most responsible for buying out competing newspapers is Rupert Murdoch, who says that his worldwide strategy is acquisition and takeovers. (9) Another is Allen Neuharth, chairman of Gannett Company, who told a group of Wall Street investors that "No Gannett newspaper has any direct competition." (10)
Since the 1992 edition of The Media Monopoly, media mergers of unprecedented scale have continued unabated -- but there's no discussion of the dangers involved, or the controversy it should represent. Disney has since bought ABC, Westinghouse has bought CBS, and Time-Warner has bought Turner Broadcasting System. Congress cleared out the remaining obstacles for still more media mergers by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Headlines in the media blared about the bill's attempt to censor pornography on the Internet, but otherwise remained completely silent about its deregulation of anti-trust laws for the media. For this bit of censorship, the Telecom Act was voted the number one censored story of 1995 by Project Censored.
The cable industry offers a perfect snapshot of media monopolization and all its dangers. After the cable television industry was deregulated in 1984, prices soared, quality of programming plummeted, and cable systems began selling their channels in indivisible blocs that prevented subscribers from voting with their dollars. From 1986 to 1990, the cost of basic service rose 56 percent -- twice the rate of inflation. (11) The problem? Growing monopolization, at several levels. There are now 11,000 cable systems across the nation, almost all of them exercising a local monopoly over their municipal region. They in turn are controlled by a handful of national companies. By far the most dominant is the phenomenally expanding TCI, which is a gatekeeper over national programming. Its owner, John Malone, owns all or part of 25 national or regional cable channels, including Turner Broadcasting. (12) Because there is little or no competition, cable programmers search for the cheapest shows to produce. Quality of programming has sunk to network TV levels."
Didn't vote for him, but now I would. He is making tough choices, and is honest (as far as I am concerned).
Wow...lot of info in your post, but I couldn't get past the first question! Which is more preferable??? Are you kidding me? Why would you think Americans should have to choose between either?
If you're implying that corporate censorship has taken over major media, I'm inclined to agree. But I suspect we're on opposite ends of the spectrum of the same argument. Case in point, NBC and MSNBC, two VERY liberal news outlets and GE. I won't go too far off on a tangent here, but there is much that concerns me about the incestuous relationship between Barack Obama's green initiatives and GE/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, and Jeffrey Immelt collectively having the ear of the President. GE's stock price has plummeted over 60% under Immelt's watch, yet Obama appoints Immelt to sit on the President's ECONOMIC Advisory Board? Coincidence? I think NOT!
Talk about your muddying the waters of corportate-government censorship. When you start regulating the media you open the public up to the dangers of just such a situation. Is it really too much of a stretch of the imagination to see where this could lead?
Not even a little bit. I'm in agreement with his direction. We elected him to make tuff choices. Of course the old, white, rich, population (mostly Republicans) dislike him, due in part they're about to see some REAL change nnd it's not...business as usual.
A Homeowner wrote: "If you're implying that corporate censorship has taken over major media, I'm inclined to agree."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. :)
"Why would you think Americans should have to choose between either? "
Well no, that's why I wrote that BOTH have to be offset.
I'm not old, I'm not white, and I'm not rich, and I don't know him to dislike him.
What I am is unhappy with what both he and our Democrat-controlled Congress are hell-bent on doing to our country and its freedoms.
Obama-change isn't change I can believe in.
Tax and Spend is not something I can believe in. Change is not defined as I'll print as much money as it takes? We are headed directly in towards a socialist society which will be paid for by all. In a free enterprise society outstanding performance is rewarded yes sometimes even monetarily. Too many have been financing thier lives not saving money based on refinancing over and over and paying for thier sins. The "rich" whomever they are certainly can't pay for everything.
All you hear on the news when folks are asked about the bailout is "I just waiting for mine"? We need to stop asking to be rescued.
I voted for Obama and I don't have any regrets at this time. Remember he has only been in office for a short time and has inherited a mess. Also, remember he can't do anything if Congress doesn't go along with him. We need to see what happens.
Well JJ you've got no worries when it comes to Congress. So far they have rubber-stamped everything he's asked them to do. In fact, the scary thing is he has a Congress that would do MORE of the taxing/spending (emphasis on spending) than he's proposing. They don't think he's spending enough!
Unfortunately we're going to be reminded once again of just how dangerous it is to have both the President and the Congress controlled by the same party.
Speaking of taxes...where's all the Democrat outrage about all the Obama appointments that are revealed to have tax issues. No wonder they have no problem raising taxes...they don't hold themselves to the standard of actually paying for the increases they establish!
Stacey, Are you kidding me with your question? Communism starts and stops with one person with one ideal. Democracy, and the desire to be less governmentally controlled on the federal level, allows the governments that start from the local governments to determine their personal needs as we all should know through observation and experience that what is good for one is not always good for another. Democracy, and the desire to depend less on the federal level, strengthens through this opportunity.
Hold this thought: for every law that is created, that equates to one less freedom for all of us. That one law may be good for some in some areas but not for all in all areas. Thus the desire to lessen the control at the federal level and allow lesser governments (state/county/city) to determine what is good for them and the people they serve.
What kind of a student are you?
I listened to a lecture probably about 5 years ago now, that Robert Kennedy gave about the Fairness Doctrine, media monopolies and independent media outlets. At that time, there were only a handful of independently owned television stations left - I think it was 5. It was very interesting and reminded me that the air ways were always considered "public" until the 1980's. I think you would have found it interesting too.
As for the comments about "liberal media" (not by Stacey) a majority of those outlets are now owned by Murdoch - which is not liberal at all.
Only time will tell if he knows what he is doing but with out a doubt the nation al budget will be screwed up worse than Bush's. Our Kids Kids will be paying for the mistakes our current politicians are making.
The jury is still out.
I think you're confusing democracy with classical liberalism or libertarianism. What I mean is that libertarian principles are not a requirement for a functioning democracy. Both "democracy" as you describe it and Communism seek a stateless society as an ideal.
Interesting. Do you remember any salient points from the lecture?
From the Great Communicator(Reagan) and Liberator to the Great Discriminator(Obama) we are headed for a Depression now.
I didn't vote for Obama and I certainly wouldn't now.
If I remember my history correctly, the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, World War 2 did. So, if any one thinks government spending is the way out of this economic mess, think again. I completely resent that my hard work will only result in paying more taxes for bailing out the crooks who made silly loans to undeserving people.
Actually, One Lucky Mom, you're not quite remembering
your history correctly.
Most economists would say that Keynesian economic stimulus
efforts are what pulled us out of the global depression of the
1930's. The drag that undercut these efforts was the protectionism
of the Smoot-Harley tariff bills that drastically reduced the amount
of international trade. For the record the Keynesian policies that
worked were implemented by FDR, a Democrat, while the Smoot-Harley
protectianism was implemented by the preceding Hoover Republican
And to be blunt, the American economy prospered for twenty years
after WWII because we had destroyed the economic engines of our
rivals, through military means, not because of any innate superiority.
Germany produced technology far superior to our own even into the
last days of the war in 1945. That's why the American moon landings
and space exploration overall was primarily driven by "liberated" (aka,
captured?) German scientists even into the 1970's.
Bottom line - 2009 - the American Free Market system has been exposed
to be, in the absence of sufficient regulation and oversite, a playground for
criminals and manipulators, ponzi scheme artists and simple idiots (you're
going to spend $1m to redecorate your office? And you're the CEO of a
Wall Street company in the fall of 2008? What kind of idiot are you? Oh -
your're a College Friend of George...that explains your braindead, tonedeaf,
incompetent leadership of a 100 year old plus institution..)
It is so wonderfully refreshing to have a President who is not an embarissment
to the nation, who can clearly explain what he is trying to accomplish while
implementing a vision that is his (not his vice president's)
Through my work I've established many friends and colleagues overseas...I've
recently received a number of emails telling me "it's nice to have America back
again, to have your moral leadership and strength restored.."
We have a big task ahead of us - to reclaim the jobs, the manufacturing
sector, the industrial heart of the nation that has been abandoned during
the last eight years. The unprecedented transfer of wealth from the bottom
98% to the top 2% has to stop. The policies of the last eight years are
reforming America economically in the image of a third world dictatorship,
with the vast proportion of the nation's wealth controlled by the very few,
more so than at any time since the "robber barons" of the late nineteenth
We can't allow the incompetent government we've suffered under for
eight years to set us back 100. No, we can't.
Dear Econ Major:
You are so offbase, it is hard to know where to start. One Lucky Mom is absolutely right. Econ Major, I will give you a bonus point for bringing up Smoot Hawley, however. Yes, these guys were Republican...although their bill was diametrically opposed to conservativism. So this was an anomoly. (Just like Bill Clinton supporting "work requirements" to receive welfare is against democrat prinicples.)
Econ Major, you must have received your degree from a college where liberal indoctrination was rampant. I can understand because indoctrination exists in virtually all colleges. You see, the "intellectuals" in universities reject capitalism because it doesn't allow them sufficient "control" over individuals' lives. Capitalism (with some regulatory oversite) is overwhelmingly shown to provide the highest standard of living compared to socialism. However, for capitalism to work best, it should not be controlled as much as democrat socialists, like you, require.
Obama is destroying the US capitalist system. Destroying our primary way of life. Notice his silence as the financial markets tumble further and further. Chaos is his objective. Domination is his goal. This is the end result of miserable democrat socialist policies. He is simply following his bible, written by Communist Saul Alinksy, entitled "Rules for Radicals." If you haven't read it, I would encourage you to do so. It is chilling because you'll see that Obama, with financial help from George Soros, is carrying out a grand plan to destroy the US capitalist system.
. wrote: "Yes, these guys were Republican...although their bill was diametrically opposed to conservativism."
Republicans at the time of the Smoot-Hawley advocated old-fashioned mercantilism as economic policy. It wasn't until the neoconservatives took over the Republican party in the 1980s that Republicans became synonymous with classical liberal economic policies. So the Smoot-Hawley act was not diametrically opposed to conservatism of the time. It is diametrically opposed to today's neoconservatism. Mercantilism is a form of government intervention on a free market.
Absolutely not and what a shame that there is criticism after only one month in office. Changes cannot happen overnight and no one is 100 percent correct on everything and the President and his Cabinet are doing the best they can with what was "left to them" to correct. This terrible problem was left to them by Bush and not Clinton as some would want to think...let's give President Obama a chance before we start complaining. Our worse nightmare right now is Rush Limbaugh...he is a very dangerous man with is opinions.
Patricia - Why is Rush Limbaugh dangerous? Help me understand. Thanks.
I don't think Rush is dangerous. I think listeners who are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion, entertainment and information are dangerous.
Well Patricia...I would wholeheartedly agree with you that Rush Limbaugh is an extremely dangerous man ... that is if your views are aligned with socialism, marxism or communism.
Rush advocates free=market capitalism which has been proven over the history of the US to provide the highest standard of living and the most innovative, productive and humanitarian way of life compared to any other country.
Rush advocates rugged individualism which also provides for those who are physically unable to provide for themselves.
I agree that Rush's style of communication is not for everyone. He can appear to be too self-confident and boastful. However, if you have not listened to him for at least 6 months straight, you've not given him a sufficient chance.
I don't know how you make your living, Patricia, however Rush would be your best advocate for you to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. He would be opposed to anything standing in your way.
If you call that dangerous, then you must be opposed to the US Constitution and everything that has made this country great, up until now. That is about to change under Obama, however, since he is bent on the destruction of US capitalism and our Constitution.
Regardless of his spending policies and the idea of whether spending ended the Great Depression or not, I can't feel good about a President's who now has a FOURTH appointee with problems paying their taxes. Most people pay their taxes and are honest. Why can't Obama find those folks to appoint?
Rush Limbaugh is dangerous because he comes just short of inciting his listeners to violence, leaving enough unsaid with a "wink wink" so they know what he means. Now, most of his listeners will just come away with a hatred of President Obama, but it's hard to say what other's will do. Rush Limbaugh spouts patriotic rhetoric to show how he loves America, yet wants the president to fail, which shows how much he doesn't love America - just Rush Limbaugh. He is a fraud, a liar and a hypocrite. And, he has the medium to gather a following. This, my friend, is what Rush Limbaugh is.
Here is a snippet from Robert Kennedy's lecture.
Glad our government is hard at work spending money they don't have. I'm scared for the future of my grand children. All I know is that our 401 has lost half of it's value and every time Obama opens his mouth the market takes a dive...that just shows there is no confidence in this administration. I'm just curious why this administration never talks about the 1970's when inflation was at an all-time high and people were being taxed 70% of their income. The only thing that fixed those times was Reagan who cut taxes in a big way. I just can't understand why our government insists on spending for projects that do not create jobs and why their "tax cuts" only put $13 per week in consumer's pockets. How is that going to make a difference?
We will just have to wait and see, but I am very concerned. I don't see the market rebounding anytime soon and continue to watch as we loose everything we've worked our entire lives for slip away while the government continues to spend on the people who have made irresponsible financial decisions.
This is not Republican or Democrats destroying are economy just crooks in power looking for ways to pay off voters. Bush did it and Obama is doing it now. Just nice to be in the right group. But only a few are whoever rules. We have so few statesman or stateswoman that really care about all of us.
This about says it all concerning the Obama plan to "spread the wealth".
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You
cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
"Spreading the wealth" is a bit lack luster when you are one of the ones busting your hump everyday, working 12-14 hour days, traveling around the world 50% of the time, and having to take time away from the family that you are trying to provide the best life you can for. And then you are told you have to help support the people who dont have the desire to get out there and do what they have to do to make it in our society. Everyone should have the same opportunities, but that certainly doesnt mean that my family should have to sacrifice anymore to help someone too lazy to take advantage of the opportunities given to them.
I knew better than to vote for him. The man has NO experience, he is simply a gifted orator. Being able to give a rousing speech is a far cry from have the chops to lead the country. Plus, he was the most left-wing (you supply the adjective) in the Senate based on the few times he voted something other than "present", and the exceeding few times he was actually there to vote. Isn't it fascinating how many tax cheats and alleged crooks he is appointing to high office? Pray that the Three Stooges don't wreck the country before we can vote them out.
Scared, let me give you another quote by your Dr. Adrian Rogers
"I feel slavery is a much maligned institution. If we had slavery today we would not have such a welfare problem."
Not someone who I would feel comfortable following.
When the new president of the U.S. goes on the news to start predicting a market bottom and says buy stocks now, then trashes experienced market people that disagree, he sounds like a mortgage broker saying don't worry about anything,just take the loan money and don't sweat it, buy the new hdtv. Without more clarification, wall street is not buying this supposed bailout plan and neither am I. Too much political pork.
I did not vote for Obama. These were the reasons why:
Association with Bill Ayers, Toni Resco, Wright, Acron. I was always taught to choose your friends carefully, they do have influence in your life. He was the most secretive democratic presidential candidate ever. These are the things he shielded from the public. He released just one brief document detailing his personal health. He refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois and was unable to produce correspondence such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There was no appointment calendars available of his official activities. He did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records.(claimed he only workede a few hours for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko.) Didn't release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia. He refused to give Columbia University permission where he earned an under graduate degree to release his transcripts. His college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. He did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate. He had an unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. He has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School. He will raise the capital gains tax. (My house is part of our retirement and we have worked very hard over the years to have it be one of our investments. He is for abortion. I believe abortion is necessary if the life of the mother is in danger or because of rape. He is for socialized health, SS benefits to illegals, restore inhertiance tax. If ant blogger can find evidence of any of the above being released I would welcome seeing it. If you voted for Obama and were informed and you agree with his politics that is one thing we all have the right to vote our conscience that is our freedom, but if you voted for him and were not informed about him our country is in trouble as we once knew it. Most civilizations do not fall because they were conquered from without, they fall because they fell from within. That takes time and it is done slowly. It is time for those of us who want to see our country remain the USA to speak out and become active.
Pleasanton Mom - in the 20 years that Mr. Limbaugh has been broadcasting, have there been any cases of someone convicted of Limbaugh-induced violence?
Still waiting for Patricia, or anyone to explain how/why Mr. Limbaugh is dangerous..........
I know why Rush is a dangerous man! Because Rush told us he is! Web Link
"The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, also known as: America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy."
I'm very impressed by what he has done so far.
The stock market is at its lowest point in how many years, he has picked numerous cabinet positions that have had to pull out for various reasons, he is back tracking on his true pull out of Iraq stance. He has pledged billions of dollars of money we don't have.
I think his career path has him mayor of Pleasanton next.
Obama's doing pretty much what was expected, whether one voted for him or not. It is well known that general elections are campaigned for from the center.
Can't see McCain acting differently on either the stimulus bill or otherwise. The marginal issues (in terms of $ allocated) would likely be different. Can't see McCain finding reasons to extend the Bush tax cuts indefinitely, given that he is somewhat a fiscal conservative (Bush pretty much trashed fiscal conservativism). Maybe he would have trimmed earmarks. May have avoided touching healthcare, though that does need fixing.
Rush is doing pretty much what was expected, as well. Wonder what he would be saying right now if McCain Palin had won the election.
The economy is unpredictable, but the players are behaving as expected.
Appears Obama tried to include Republicans and then saw the futility of the effort in a two-party national political system.
Let's see what happens after the mid-term elections. Expecting the infighting in the Republican party to weaken its presence in Congress further. Once that happens, greater chance of bipartisan behaviour. However, the Democrats will likely start misbehaving. Then will open up room for a Republican resurgence in '12. That's the view as best as I can look ahead.
What do you folks think will happen in 2010 and 2012 elections?
Our Failed President's supporters are still slobbering at his crotch to see what is happening. They do not see that our civil liberties are being eroded. Elections have consequences.
Fear not, help is own the way...
Per AARON SMITH, CNNMoney.com and AOL, the White House released its promised cash infusion on Tuesday to strengthen the transportation infrastructure across America, and began to announce the first recipients of the funds.
The U.S. government released $26.6 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to states and local transportation authorities, for the building and rebuilding of roads, highways, and bridges.
"President Obama is keeping his promise to the American people and he is doing it ahead of schedule," said Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in a statement, noting that the funds were released eight days sooner than required.
The DOT said more than 100 transportation projects, receiving some $750 million in ARRA funds, have been identified and can begin work within one month.
The $26.6 billion in highway funds is aimed to generate 150,000 jobs through the end of 2010. The median pay for these jobs is $18.31 an hour, according to the White House.
This is part of President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan, intended to "save or create" at least 3.5 million jobs through 2010.
Notice the "median pay" of $18.31. If I'm not mistaken, isn't 15 - 20 bucks an hour what the guys that hang out at Home Depot ask. Any bets as to who will get the majority of the jobs since contractors tend to spend as little as possible for labor...
With the ties the unions have to the Democrat Party, I'm suprised at least a portion of the funds didn't include a "union label" requirement...
Do you suppose our local, state or congressional representatives have applied for funding for local projects such as Hwy. 84...
It never ceases to amaze me that voters DO NOT REALIZE THAT...
- Democrats BENEFIT from disasters (whether economic, environmental, civil, etc.) so they are always talking about GLOOM AND DOOM. I strongly believe that if the truth be known, we would see that powerful democrat socialists like George Soros, Obama, Clinton etc. actually participated in CAUSING the financial meltdown to happen. They can do this with assistance from their financial connections in other countries. OBAMA BENEFITS from the financial disaster because he has even more control over our lives.
- Conservatives, on the other hand, benefit when there is high employment and an enviroment that encourages innovation, business development, strong defense, etc.
Speaking of erosion to liberty...
"Bypassing the Constitutional right to due process of law" Web Link
"Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" Web Link
"Secret Laws" Web Link
"Oops, we accidentally suspended Habeas Corpus. Hope no one notices!" Web Link
"Now we just need to make it legal for the President to use the military against the American people" Web Link
Jerry - see Obama's executive order:
There's your union label requirement. This order suspends a previous order that prevented the requirement. This executive order allows the federal governement to require a PLA.
Not sure what he's thinking proposing to limit the deductions families can claim for charitable donations, mortgage interest, and state and local taxes.
OK, I get it. Those of us who work hard enough to make $250,000 or more should pay much more to make it a "fair" share. But limiting the deductions I can claim on charitable donations and mortgage interest will only lead to two undesirable outcomes:
1. I will not donate as much, if anything, depending on the severity of those limits. Charity organizations, including schools, are going to suffer.
2. Again depending on the limits, there will be little or no incentives for me to take out a mortgage and own a home. I would be better off renting. That will kill the demand and consequently the home values nationwide. We will probably see more impacts due to the high value of our homes here in Pleasanton.
I just don't get what he's thinking...
Impeach Obama....He has absolutely no experience. In the first two months of his rule he has spent the same amount of our money that has been spent in the history of our nation. People..educate yourselves by looking back on his campaign statements....the politics have already began. God Bless the United States!
Congress is responsible for money matters.....that's why Clinton years turned out so well, he had Dems first 2 years, then Repubs ran Congress for his next 6 years.. Likewise, W's last 2 years....leading up to Obama were run by an all DEM Congress...which Obama inherited ! !
Obama followed rahm Emanuel's theory "never miss an opportunity created from an CRISIS"....so they (he & Obama) went immediately to ramming his POLITICAL campaign agenda.... union and green campaign payoffs, green ramming, and healtcare ramming (no silly delays discussing it)...thinking that could all happen and the JOB market crisis would work it's self out. WRONG ! His biggest mistake was NOT putting his POLITICAL AGENDA ON HOLD....and instead FOCUS on small- medium BUSINESS JOB STABILITY (creation wouldn't be necessary IF JOBS had been KEPT), All the job cuts, FURLOUIGHS, and pay cuts....contributed to MORE foreclosures....the remaining UNemployed and furloughed cuts, are depleting the savings for college and retirements, just to keep the house !! HE wasted VALUABLE TIME ! ! ! NOW, FINALLY.....a year later, decides to talk about JOBS !! TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE ! Can't go back to 'do over'. the sequence was misguided and political.
This Repub doesn't like and doesn't listen to Limbaugh. He's not a danger to anybody except the Repub 'party' & candidates. But if you want to talk media, It do think the most scary, most threatening thing to our country lately, is a President that tried to silence media...that's chilling and dangerous. First saying what stations or shows he doesn't want us to listen to....THEN even worse, the 'administration' threats, requests,& intimidation to networks...causing the firings of Lou Dobbs by CNN, and John Stossel by ABC. Doubly sad that they would cave in. Everybody loses.
Why was did the comments jump from 7PM....to an inserted Cholo " 7 hours ago" ?? both visible at 12 midnight. 7Pm would be 5 hours....???followed by a 7 hours ago entry. ?? How could that be?
To "Getting Finanacially Screwed"....they call it social 'justice' !!
I still wonder what is going to happen to today's middle-class. Rich get to go to college, Poor get to go with free-ride scholarships, minorities are RECRUITED in their own minority recreuitment seminars...with free-ride aid and encouraged to go on with advanced degrees (in social justice). WHERE are those middle-class math, white-males going to fit in society, since mom & dad are getting squeezed out of jobs and homes at this moment. Shoudln't it be 'equal' opportunity. When can we have a colorless society with everybody being 'Americans' charting our own course.
Please give us a hand while we flout federal law
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 719 views
A good year for Pleasanton; 2018 could be even better
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 653 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2017 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.